JoAnne and Risa are liveblogging the CDMS seminar at Stanford
bottom line, they see two events when they unblind, compared to expected 0.5
net confidence is a bit over 2σ (nailed it, yeah!).
interesting bounds on cross-section for WIMPs with mass under 70 GeV/c2
good stuff
More like this
travel blogs get tiresome, but since I am trespassing on Cosmic Variance turf, I'll indulge
So: Bay Area, yay!
Expecting major snow storm in PA: ✓
Rain predicted in CA: ✓
PS: Damm! It really IS raining. Phooey.
Name a concrete, new international facility class science project that the US is going to be leading in near future.
Seriously: and you can either keep it to Astronomy, or any natural science.
Some time back, Dave Munger called me out for the one sentence challenge, originally phrased thusly:
Ben Bernanke has the answer. It is all your fault.
What is a valid approximation for the number of theory papers that will be written about this? I'm guessing that the number of papers goes like N^p * N_theorists, where N is the number of detected events, p is some power (2?), and N_theorists is the number of theorists in the field. Unfortunately this seems to be a terrible fit to the data for small N (<1) and large N (I'm guessing).
Maybe an exponential would be better?
ha, they were probably monopoles!
i can't wait until they expand the experiment and up the detections!